Prince Myshkin

You do realise that a substantial part of world racism can be found in religion? I don't think you would like that thread either.

I am not saying that all people are like this but the Church as a mechanism is homophobic. Please look back at my previous posts in the thread. It is also fair to point out that I was not accusing all Christian churches of child rape. It is in no way saying that all Muslims are terrorists. The Catholic Church, including the Pope, have covered up many incidents of child rape, and not expelled those involved, simply moved them to a new parish in order to distance itself from the shame. They should take responsibility and care for those affected and they would get more praise for prevention, rather than thinking only of their own image. So yes, I feel my statement on child rape was fair with regards to the Catholic Church (as a mechanism), although I didn't name it specifically as i was running through the odious crimes of many Religions in one. Since they have come up in this conversation I will say specifically that the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for, and is only made to when they are found out. Supporting an organisation which fails to prevent child rape, and in some circumstances allows it to continue and spreads it (when they move the person involved to a new area and don't remove them from the church, allowing them to infect a whole new group of people) is not something that I think should be ignored, so Catholics themselves should search deep inside themselves and question whether supporting this is indeed a good thing. That is all I can ask of them, I would not force anybody to change their religion of course. Please read through my posts again.

A decent point but nobodies opinions should be respected by a person unless people agree with them, or disrespected unless you disagree with them. Just because somebody doesn't respect your opinions, doesn't mean you should not respect theirs, based purely on that point. The idea is to retaliate through debate on why your believe that their belief is wrong, rather than just arguing for arguments sake. I understand what you were saying though, in trying to make her see that a lack of respect for a persons belief can be quite annoying, but I think the problem is that this debate has become about language, and the only language which is dangerous is inciteful language, which in itself should be open to debate and ridicule, rather than simply trying to suppress it. There has been no language used to incite hate in this thread, so why people have taken things so personal I don't understand.

Haha, OK then. I'm intrigued as to what it could be. Oh, that reminds me I have an idea for a topic. It revolves around evolution, but doesn't involve religion (wow, lots of 'volves' there). I'm not sure if it has the legs to be a discussion for a week though. I'll post it in the ideas thread.

I'm kinda ready for the next topic now. I've said plenty in this thread. But still it keeps dragging me back haha.

Which is fine. You can believe that and she can put forward her beliefs. It is not like she is calling for religious people (from organised religion) to be persecuted. I am sure she would much rather them be educated on the dangers of organised religion and their previous history.

When this happens the affected child should be educated on the lack of weight behind their bullies claims, and the bullies themselves should be educated. It's the only way.

This thread has moved off topic.

Nobody is saying that the current use of freedom of speech is perfect as it is. It isn't.

I'm sure there won't be drooling. I'll post silly pics to make sure. This is me about 6 months ago just after waking up. Complete with scruffy hair, back when I had a double chin.

This is not what she said, however the first sentence you said is true. I think what she was trying to say is that people should have the right to say it, and then it should be scrutinized and criticised if need be. That is a proper debate. Silencing people doesn't work. They will only rebel in more sinister ways than simply language.

As I have said a few times on this board I wish we could actually have freedom of speech, because only through that comes education. People could put their ideas forward and the racism, homophobia, sexism and any other prejudice would be ridiculed. Things like this wouldn't be kept under wraps, with small pockets of people hidden, plotting against each other. This would still happen, but it would decrease a lot as through debate, discussion and the search for knowledge, people would become better educated when it comes to colour, creed, sex and sexuality. A lot more people would be saved from their own ignorance this way. It would also let you know just who the fucking idiots were, so you could avoid them.

I don't understand the smiley :embarrassed: It looks sinister.

I don't think this was aimed at me, but I will add my point anyway. I see no evidence that backs up organised religion. I don't believe that I am an atheist, although I lean towards that side. Certainly if there was a god I feel that it would be more of an energy. I still lean towards atheism however, and I am satisfied with not knowing. Personal spirituality, belief in god and anything like that is absolutely fine in my book. Religion is a problem though.

It seems to be that the basic jobs have over 20 people going for each one, and the better jobs require more experience than I have. I will take any job.

This is not true. Freedom of speech should be an entirety, not limited. And then it is up to people to criticise and scrutinize if they wish. I would not like to live in a society where people could not say what they felt, regardless of what I feel about it. Just don't be surprised if I put up arguments against it if I disagree with it. Freedom of speech does not affect another persons rights or freedoms, so I really don't understand what you were trying to say.

I am saying that Religion was used in the case of Hitler and Stalin, and it was not simply a case of THIS IS ATHEISM. My knowledge on Mao is far less great however so I did not comment on that. Also I was not saying you were aware of those philosophies, it was more that you had the ridiculous idea that atheism could be blamed for Hitler and Stalin. The incidents that we point to are events that have taken place directly because of the religious texts and teachings by those in power of the religions (and it certainly is power). I was simply suggesting that to use a fair way of attacking atheism you would have to use a society which enacts the mantras of other forms of knowledge, such as literature. And if you honestly believe that I think what Stalin did was OK then I have nothing more to say to you. You seem to be the person hurling around accusations based on very little, not I.

I'll find a link to a pic of me from here, but I'm not posting it in the Womanly Thread. That would be playing right into their hands :p

Sweeeeet. Do you have time to do the things you want, as well as study? I'm good thanks. Just need work :( Well since I'm clearly Coldplaying's biggest pervert AND I'm not currently drinking alcohol until xmas that pretty much sums me up.

Yoyoyo How's life treating you?

Done. Yeah, don't bother mailing that email since I'm the same. It's an old one.

I do somewhere. I'll hunt one down and post it for my fellow pervs haha. I agree with this statement. I'll PM you my msn. Once the war is won and free love is an option for all, I will make good my offer. :awesome: Holy fuck, I totally missed that :blush: And yeah, that'll be straight in my sig. :laugh3:

:laugh3: Sweet. One thing I would point out is that I don't have an obsession with boobs, I merely mention them here when I find the current topic has been going on for too long, or I begin struggling to wade through the waves of blood.

Correct I sure do! And milk cow too, I think. You're on fire :lol: You are a human, named after an animal :confused: :awesome: Yeah, you are growing on me a lot. I still maintain that Mandela should be a symbol for hope, not one for peace, at least not as far as actually getting the Nobel Peace Prize. *waves*

No, I was not discussing the Catholic church alone. I referred to Islam and Judaism quite clearly. Please re-read my post. I think you should also take some time to study some of the fascist dictators more closely before making statements like that. Nazism, Communism and Stalinism are nothing like as secular as people think. Until 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, millions of Russians had for hundreds and hundreds of years been told that the head of the state, the Czar, was also the head of the state for the church and was more than human. He was the little father of the children. He wasn't quite divine and was more like a saint than a human. He owned everything in the country and everything was due to him. That's how a gigantic layer of Russian society was inculcated with servile, fatalistic ideas. This is such a huge opportunity for a dictator to exploit. He inherited a population that he could manipulate due to their superstition. Stalin set up an inquisition, outing heretics through the Moscow trials, proclaims miracles by claiming to have improved the harvests himself, and therefore all thanks should be to him and they should continue to praise him to allow it to continue. Incidentally he always kept the Russian orthodox church on his side. The church split and some moved to New York, but the church in Russia always remained part of the regime Hitler and Mussolini made an even more aggressive deal with the Roman Catholic Church and with some of the Protestants. The other great axis of evil at the time was the Emporer of Japan, who was not only religious but apparently also a god. As Hitchens says, my advice to you would be to find a society which has adopted the teachings of the Spinoza, Voltaire, Galileo, Einstein, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and gone down the pits as a result of doing so, into famine, war, dictatorship, repression and torture. That would be a fair test. Atheism is filled with the same amount of bad people as faith, although they do not have something specifically suggesting that they oppress others. I also find it odd that you describe the Church of England to be liberal, even though you point out yourself that gay ministers aren't fully incorporated. I'd find it interesting to see what you define as 'pretty liberal'.